HomeCharactersFantasy CharactersChivalry & Sorcery & Eyestrain, Part III


Chivalry & Sorcery & Eyestrain, Part III — 6 Comments

  1. C&S 1st edition was confused with poor layout and the infamous small font. In it’s defence this was 1977. In that everyone is in agreement. Yet, it broke new ground and deserves praise as it in turn influenced all the other games (inc. D&D).

    A shame you didn’t pick 2nd edition (1983) to work through as it addressed most of the criticisms by reworking the rules somewhat, completely redoing the layout to something usable whilst losing none of the flavour.

    Of particular note (re: your article) was Character Generation, switching from random die roll to a points pool allocation mechanism 50+(10*2D6) resulting in 70 to 170 points to spend although you could have a bonus to that if your horoscope was favourable.

    C&S 3rd/4th did it slightly differently than that, but I’d encourage you to take a new look at 2nd. It fixed much of what 1st got wrong.

    5th Edition is due out in several months by the way.

    • I picked up Second Edition when it was semi-new (I think I got it around 1986 or so), so I am familiar with it. My interest in going back to the original was that it seemed more interesting to me, as an exercise in a rules walkthrough. I’m not sure how to characterize my “create a character” articles, because they’re not really reviews, per se, or rules analysis, or history… they’re all of the above, combined with (attempts at) humor and sarcasm.

  2. I came in via a link directly to your C&S article so haven’t read your other posts so didn’t realise your “angle”.

    Now I know that, it would be good to hear a summary from you IE how did C&S 1 stand up against Petal Throne, Tunnels & Trolls, OD&D & En Garde! (all first editions of course)… the 1974-1977 first batch of RPG’s.

    Good work Mr Lizard, a very interesting angle for some blogs.

  3. I very much enjoyed your three amusing C&S articles.

    Back in the day (1978 or so) I remember C&S was the game that a few hard core diehards at the university played so they could look down on the D&D players. For the rest of us it was kind of a joke – “percent chance of trout tickling” in the survival rules, that sort of thing. I think it was acknowledged the magic system was cool, and the C&S Sourcebook had some well-written GM advice on roleplaying encounters.

    I can see how random character generation with players willing to go with the flow could create some interesting concepts – the ugly, unwise but clever-tongued and dextrous daughter of a minor noble who moonlights as a sneak thief has story possibilities, albeit perhaps more as an NPC than a player character!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *